From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?B?SsO2cm4=?= Engel Subject: Re: [PATCH] LogFS take three Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 21:19:26 +0200 Message-ID: <20070515191926.GB1220@lazybastard.org> References: <20070515151919.GA32510@lazybastard.org> <17994.1241.436841.681216@stoffel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, akpm@osdl.org, Albert Cahalan , Thomas Gleixner , Jan Engelhardt , Evgeniy Polyakov , Pekka Enberg , Greg KH , Ingo Oeser To: John Stoffel Return-path: Received: from lazybastard.de ([212.112.238.170]:33379 "EHLO longford.lazybastard.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755427AbXEOTXu (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 May 2007 15:23:50 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17994.1241.436841.681216@stoffel.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 15 May 2007 15:07:05 -0400, John Stoffel wrote: >=20 > I've been semi watching this, and the only comment I really can give > is that I hate the name. To me, logfs implies a filesystem for > logging purposes, not for Flash hardware with wear leveling issues to > be taken into account. Yeah, well, ... Two years ago when I started all this, I was looking for a good name. All I could come up with sounded stupid, so I picked "LogFS" as a code name. As soon as I find a better name, the code name should get replaced. By now I still don't have anything better. All alternatives that were proposed are just as bad - with the added disadvantage of being new and not established yet. My hope of ever finding a better name is nearly zero. > Also, having scanned through the code, I find the name "cookie" using > in logfs_inode(), logfs_iput(), logfs_iget() to be badly named. It > should really be something like *cached_inode, which would seem to > give more natural semantics of >=20 > if (cached_inode) > do_cached_inode_ops(...) > else > do_inode_ops(...) Half-agreed. For callers, the name "cookie" makes sense. It is a transparent thing they should not tough and hand back unchanged. For logfs_iget() and logfs_iput() something like "is_cached" would be better. Will change. J=C3=B6rn --=20 Linux [...] existed just for discussion between people who wanted to show off how geeky they were. -- Rob Enderle - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel= " in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html